Wave 4 pics up...

Discuss Mongoose miniatures game here, including Mighty Armies, Gangs of Mega-City One, and Battlefield Evolution.
tneva82
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3133
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 5:08 pm

Postby tneva82 » Thu May 24, 2007 5:53 pm

emperorpenguin wrote: and the bit you quote SPECIFICALLY mentions Royal Navy Future Lynx.
Out of curiosity. Navy future lynx will then have missiles? Whatabout the MGP lynx with missiles being navy version...Far more cost effective to produce model that can do both versions then.
皆と友達ができませんが皆に友好的ができます

You can't be friend with everybody but you can be friendly to everybody
tneva82
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3133
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 5:08 pm

Postby tneva82 » Thu May 24, 2007 5:55 pm

emperorpenguin wrote:.......so what happened to the 60+ Apaches we have and we build ourselves just under licence. If hostilities broke out do you think we'd care about them withdrawing licence or suing? We'd still build them.
Who says they couldn't use BOTH at the same time? And as for why not apache in BF:Evo: Howabout not to make them too similar to USMC...
皆と友達ができませんが皆に友好的ができます

You can't be friend with everybody but you can be friendly to everybody
User avatar
emperorpenguin
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5714
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:02 am
Location: British in Dublin

Postby emperorpenguin » Thu May 24, 2007 5:59 pm

tneva82 wrote:Out of curiosity. Navy future lynx will then have missiles? Whatabout the MGP lynx with missiles being navy version...Far more cost effective to produce model that can do both versions then.
because a) it's in Army coluors
b) the Royal Navy don't tank hunt any more than the army sinks ships
c) Sea Skua 2 will not be an anti-tank missile
Into the Fire: 4th place
Wheel of Fire: 9th place
Gaelcon 2006: 2nd place
User avatar
emperorpenguin
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5714
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:02 am
Location: British in Dublin

Postby emperorpenguin » Thu May 24, 2007 6:02 pm

tneva82 wrote:Since you seem to be able to fortell the future 100% accuratly why haven't you won yourself couple of billions in lottery then?
no need to get sarky, it doesn't need prediction just going with what IS known. Why has the Challenger 2 got the L55 gun? It doesn't currently.

Because of research into what it WILL be armed with

tneva82 wrote:Do wheels prevent plugging missile pods into side of copter?
They do with TOW
tneva82 wrote:Who says they couldn't use BOTH at the same time? And as for why not apache in BF:Evo: Howabout not to make them too similar to USMC...
because you'd be throwing away the very scout helicopters (Future Lynx) designed to help the Apache acquire targets, again this is research.
And how many Apaches do the USMC use? They use Super Cobra. Now it'd be interesting to know how others would react if Apache was given to the USMC in the game

There seems no problem with having British and USMC infantry so similar, or Challengers and Abrams

I'm tired of this if you are going to post something disagreeing with me please check your facts
Into the Fire: 4th place
Wheel of Fire: 9th place
Gaelcon 2006: 2nd place
bigtmac68
Weasel
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 2:03 am

Postby bigtmac68 » Thu May 24, 2007 6:20 pm

I don't want "hypothetical helis" I want those 60+ Apaches
Ok, now thats an argument I can understand, but seriously I dont see why it would be so bad to just use pieta's unit cards and a 1/64 scale apache if you want a longbow with your brits that badly. Your allready proxying a non MGP Tigre, why not an apache?

as far as your response to scenario 2, good point, but say push that engagment ahead 6 months, apache casualties due to unexpectedly high numbers of enemy AA and Air power have far exceeded liscenced apache production, again interim solution to severly understrenght air units, ( use what you have ) one of the oldest axioms of warfare.

My only point is that it should not be such a reach mentally to consider that the flynx is a transport helo that has an option to be a Field Modified stop gap AT bird. This sort of thing pretty much allways happens in a high intensity conflict. Something runs out, so you have to use something else until you get more.

I guess I , and everyone are confused as to why you are so seemingly violently opposed to that idea.

As a comparison, if they released a blackhawk with the same package It would not bother me a bit and for the same reason. Is that the primary role of the blackhawk, no. In a pinch can I see the US Army doing a field modification to make a second class AT bird out of them in a desperate situation. Hell yes, the army has been doing that sort of thing since we were shooting redcoats.

If mongoose were to release an M113 or stryker hull variant with an experimental metalstorm system I would be fine with it. Not becasue its on any future planned toe, but because thats just the sort of thing we do if the S hits the fan. Take what we have laying around, slap it together and get it to the field as fast as possible while we build and test the real system.
Templar
Weasel
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:14 pm

Postby Templar » Thu May 24, 2007 6:25 pm

I gotta say, I like things to remain as accurate as they can, but the flipside is, it isn't totally unheard of to mount weapons on transports in war time or in specific situations.

Adding weapons systems to transports definitely occurs, but really, criticism is what makes a game more realistic. I plan on playing SST evo as well, but this game isn't it - this game is about modern-near future combat.

Now, is it a stray from say, the bigger gunships - oh, heck yeah. Yet, we are playing 5-10 years in the future and the US is at war with Europe? I can see a lot of changes.

I just don't think this is that much of a stetch to me.

Again, this is what happens when you make a military game based on the real world - you get military realists, gamers, and model junkies, and you have to try and please them all.
User avatar
emperorpenguin
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5714
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:02 am
Location: British in Dublin

Postby emperorpenguin » Thu May 24, 2007 6:28 pm

bigtmac68 wrote:Ok, now thats an argument I can understand, but seriously I dont see why it would be so bad to just use pieta's unit cards and a 1/64 scale apache if you want a longbow with your brits that badly. Your allready proxying a non MGP Tigre, why not an apache?
I'd want (as would my gamers) official stats, one is a playtester so I get to use the Tiger.
as far as your response to scenario 2, good point, but say push that engagment ahead 6 months, apache casualties due to unexpectedly high numbers of enemy AA and Air power have far exceeded liscenced apache production,
good argument BUT what if I want to play day one of said war?
In a pinch can I see the US Army doing a field modification to make a second class AT bird out of them in a desperate situation. Hell yes, the army has been doing that sort of thing since we were shooting redcoats.
what, flying helis since the days of shooting redcoats? :lol:
Into the Fire: 4th place
Wheel of Fire: 9th place
Gaelcon 2006: 2nd place
User avatar
emperorpenguin
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5714
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:02 am
Location: British in Dublin

Postby emperorpenguin » Thu May 24, 2007 6:29 pm

Templar wrote:Again, this is what happens when you make a military game based on the real world - you get military realists, gamers, and model junkies, and you have to try and please them all.
Very well said Templar
Into the Fire: 4th place
Wheel of Fire: 9th place
Gaelcon 2006: 2nd place
bigtmac68
Weasel
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 2:03 am

Postby bigtmac68 » Thu May 24, 2007 7:07 pm

I'd want (as would my gamers) official stats, one is a playtester so I get to use the Tiger.
Ok now thats just wrong.

so if you quit, can I get your unit cards :wink:

Seriously though, It seems to me that your more upset about no british apaches than with field mods on the lynx. Since mgp has allready paid for the prototype tow launchers for the model Its not realistic to expect them to change it without a massive uproar which, sad to say bro, is not likley on this one as most of us are cool with the lynx tow mod.

I would be willing to put my full ( considerable - they dont call me big troy for nothing ) weight behind demanding a british apache be added to the EFTF list for next year, or even better an Apache with a decal slip so it can be used US Army or British army.

there are a whole ton of us who would love to see that!

and would I rather have had the apache first, and then the lynx ( or even tiger first then lynx ) sure but thats water under the bridge so I would respectfully suggest we direct our ire to try and have mgp placate us with a nice pretty apache :lol:
User avatar
emperorpenguin
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5714
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:02 am
Location: British in Dublin

Postby emperorpenguin » Thu May 24, 2007 7:19 pm

bigtmac68 wrote:
I'd want (as would my gamers) official stats, one is a playtester so I get to use the Tiger.
Ok now thats just wrong.

so if you quit, can I get your unit cards :wink:
:wink: afraid all I get is to look at the pretty stats and play using them, then hand them back!
Seriously though, It seems to me that your more upset about no british apaches than with field mods on the lynx
.

No I really am upset about IMO poor research
Since mgp has allready paid for the prototype tow launchers for the model Its not realistic to expect them to change it without a massive uproar which, sad to say bro, is not likley on this one as most of us are cool with the lynx tow mod.
I know, you're right
Into the Fire: 4th place
Wheel of Fire: 9th place
Gaelcon 2006: 2nd place
User avatar
Hiromoon
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7098
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 3:02 am
Location: TFCT Michael Fleming Folland
Contact:

Postby Hiromoon » Thu May 24, 2007 7:40 pm

Wait, EP is having issues with the Future Lynx mounting TOWs?

Huh... ah well.

Anyway, here's the Defense Industry Daily's bit for the Future Lynx
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/200 ... x.php#more

From Army Technology
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future-lynx/

And heck, if it's predecessor can tote TOWs...

http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... -mk74.html
ImageImage
Thanks Veon and ScipioAmericanus!
www.zupandevelopment.com
bigtmac68
Weasel
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 2:03 am

Postby bigtmac68 » Thu May 24, 2007 8:50 pm

With all due respect Hiro, and you are da man as ive said before.

I read all the links and the only reference to the armament of the future lynx make no mention of any form of ATGM.

And though I disagree with him in principle, i have to agree with EPeng that none of the available data shows tows or any form of atgm likley to be a regular equipment package for the future lynx.

We can disagree over how big and issue the innacuracy is, but I think its pretty well established that it is an innacuracy.
User avatar
emperorpenguin
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5714
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:02 am
Location: British in Dublin

Postby emperorpenguin » Thu May 24, 2007 9:01 pm

Hiromoon wrote:Wait, EP is having issues with the Future Lynx mounting TOWs?

Huh... ah well.

Anyway, here's the Defense Industry Daily's bit for the Future Lynx
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/200 ... x.php#more

From Army Technology
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future-lynx/

And heck, if it's predecessor can tote TOWs...

http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... -mk74.html
I already posted all of that stuff Hiro and as BigT says none of it adds weight to the pro-TOW argument, in fact it weakens it. I also said if anyone was going to contradict me for the millionth time today they'd better check their facts, so you're in for a smacking! :wink:

the only argument for really is the "Apaches=kaboom" argument
Into the Fire: 4th place
Wheel of Fire: 9th place
Gaelcon 2006: 2nd place
tneva82
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3133
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 5:08 pm

Postby tneva82 » Thu May 24, 2007 9:37 pm

emperorpenguin wrote:no need to get sarky, it doesn't need prediction just going with what IS known.
And how you know they wouldn't kitbash them in war enviroment quickly? In war variants appear at accelerated rate...Field modifications to add more weapons is pretty common...Has happened in pretty much every prolonged war. The bigger the more likely.

You have good solid helicopter. Why wouldn't they add AT capabilities if they find they have run short? Just because some comitee decided decade+ ago when not in war that it should not have? As if...
Because of research into what it WILL be armed with
Research that isn't holy bible. Just because it's like that NOW doesn't mean it can't be CHANGED later. Like in middle of war to bolster AT capabilities.
They do with TOW
If TOW is put into place where wheels don't touch how...
because you'd be throwing away the very scout helicopters
Throw away? Or add more functions...
And how many Apaches do the USMC use?
Well US army. Either way US chopper. We would have 2 factions with US equipment. Somehow the 2 sides starts to look boringly similar...As it is they are already very similar. Why ram it into players face and bland them into clones...
There seems no problem with having British and USMC infantry so similar, or Challengers and Abrams
And because of that instead of diversifying they should make them even more similar...Yup! Great thinking! NOT!
皆と友達ができませんが皆に友好的ができます

You can't be friend with everybody but you can be friendly to everybody
User avatar
emperorpenguin
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5714
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:02 am
Location: British in Dublin

Postby emperorpenguin » Thu May 24, 2007 10:41 pm

tneva82 wrote:Research that isn't holy bible.
Research that wasn't done but hell this is feeling like Groundhog day...
If TOW is put into place where wheels don't touch how...
You'd have to ask Agusta Westland but since they scrapped it I'll go with their word
Throw away? Or add more functions...
add more functions to a scout? so it is no longer a scout, preventing it performing its role..... why aren't Gazelles armed by Britain? Why aren't there plans for armed Future Lynx, if you think arming your scouts so they can go haring off chasing tanks instead of doing their job is a good idea!
Well US army. Either way US chopper. We would have 2 factions with US equipment. Somehow the 2 sides starts to look boringly similar...As it is they are already very similar. Why ram it into players face and bland them into clones...
But the US Army isn't in the game so we wouldn't. So if Australia gets added they can't use Tigers or Leopards?
Into the Fire: 4th place
Wheel of Fire: 9th place
Gaelcon 2006: 2nd place
User avatar
Hiromoon
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7098
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 3:02 am
Location: TFCT Michael Fleming Folland
Contact:

Postby Hiromoon » Fri May 25, 2007 1:25 am

emperorpenguin wrote: I already posted all of that stuff Hiro and as BigT says none of it adds weight to the pro-TOW argument, in fact it weakens it. I also said if anyone was going to contradict me for the millionth time today they'd better check their facts, so you're in for a smacking! :wink:

the only argument for really is the "Apaches=kaboom" argument

http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... -mk74.html

Funny...there's a Lynx right there mounting TOW missiles, and while it's the current model, it certainly stands that there's a possibility that there will be an ATGM variant. Just because they're not mounting all the weapon systems on a test model or the concept doesn't mention a specific purpose certainly doesn't invalidate Mongoose's purposed version. And given how much the Comanche changed during it's development phase...
Well, your position is conjecture untill 2011 when the initial deliveries start.
ImageImage
Thanks Veon and ScipioAmericanus!
www.zupandevelopment.com
User avatar
Hiromoon
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7098
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 3:02 am
Location: TFCT Michael Fleming Folland
Contact:

Postby Hiromoon » Fri May 25, 2007 1:31 am

bigtmac68 wrote:We can disagree over how big and issue the innacuracy is, but I think its pretty well established that it is an innacuracy.
On a concept vehicle? I'd say the USMC using SWORD TALONS instead of Gladiators being an innaccuracy more than the Future Lynx mounting TOWs.
ImageImage
Thanks Veon and ScipioAmericanus!
www.zupandevelopment.com
User avatar
emperorpenguin
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5714
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:02 am
Location: British in Dublin

Postby emperorpenguin » Fri May 25, 2007 1:48 am

Hiromoon wrote:http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... -mk74.html

Funny...there's a Lynx right there mounting TOW missiles, and while it's the current model, it certainly stands that there's a possibility that there will be an ATGM variant. Just because they're not mounting all the weapon systems on a test model or the concept doesn't mention a specific purpose certainly doesn't invalidate Mongoose's purposed version. And given how much the Comanche changed during it's development phase...
Well, your position is conjecture untill 2011 when the initial deliveries start.
jumping Jesus if I have to tell one more person to read what is posted! :roll:

This is about the fifth time today I have had to tell someone that the ski equipped mk 7 is not only NOT Future Lynx but not even the current version of Lynx at all!
The Mk 9 has wheels (as does Future Lynx) and consequently canot carry TOW

My position is not conjecture. It is the stated position of the Army and Agusta Westland. Mongoose's position is conjecture

For Pete's sake will the next person to post actually READ what has already been said :evil:
Into the Fire: 4th place
Wheel of Fire: 9th place
Gaelcon 2006: 2nd place
User avatar
Hiromoon
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7098
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 3:02 am
Location: TFCT Michael Fleming Folland
Contact:

Postby Hiromoon » Fri May 25, 2007 2:04 am

*coughs* EP, in all due respect, you are working with conjecture. And constantly telling people to just go read what is written doesn't change matters. The Future Lynx concept isn't set in stone, and given how much a concept can change over the course of a few years, your position that the Future Lynx can't mount TOWs is as valid as Mongoose's postion that it can.

What even better is if you change the position of the mounting brackets, you literally CAN mount those TOWs anywhere you wish on the vehicle..be it behind the doors, infront of the doors...or you could just replace the doors with a mounting block so that you can mount even more there.

And if anything, the naval version shows you exactly how you can mount the TOWs without messing about with the wheels. So loosen up and ligthen up EP.
ImageImage
Thanks Veon and ScipioAmericanus!
www.zupandevelopment.com
User avatar
emperorpenguin
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5714
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:02 am
Location: British in Dublin

Postby emperorpenguin » Fri May 25, 2007 2:12 am

Hiromoon wrote: EP, in all due respect, you are working with conjecture. And constantly telling people to just go read what is written doesn't change matters
.

I keep telling people to read because I've had about 5 people show me the flippin' naval version thinking they were showing me a TOW armed army bird
I have had another half dozen tell me there is no problem mounting TOW....
What even better is if you change the position of the mounting brackets, you literally CAN mount those TOWs anywhere you wish on the vehicle..be it behind the doors, infront of the doors...or you could just replace the doors with a mounting block so that you can mount even more there.
So you know better than Agusta Westland? Well I'll be damned, you could have saved their export orders Hiro......
And if anything, the naval version shows you exactly how you can mount the TOWs without messing about with the wheels. .
err no that shows how to mount Sea Skua not TOW, again please read what is posted
Into the Fire: 4th place
Wheel of Fire: 9th place
Gaelcon 2006: 2nd place

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests